The evidence for Evolution.

[Subduction Zone]

If I have to tell you that there's not much hope of your understanding biology. If I breed smaller dogs with smaller dogs I end up with yet smaller dogs.

Just as if I were to breed smaller wolves with smaller wolves I would end up with even smaller wolves. But in the wild there is no selective breeding of size to produce specific traits.

If I bred small humans with small humans I would end up with only small humans. If I bred those with Asian features only with those of Asian features, guess what, you get Asians.

Biology 101.

So you still do not understand genetics.

 

[dad]

From my recollection you tend to get very confused about what Jesus said. And what is said about a person and what that person does are two different things. If you read and understand the Bible the Devil is actually rather honest. But understanding the Bible was never your forte.

That relates to what..how?

So you are admitting that you lost that point. Very good. We can move on.

Pretending will get you no where.

Off topic Bible quotes are not support.

New rules. They are the best support on earth.
Especially when people cite the bible and talk about Jesus as if they had some small clue what they were talking about. Both Jesus and the devil used Scripture. I can too. I see you try to also. Let's be honest.

If you want to support the Bible you have to go outside of the Bible.

The life of God in the bible and higher than man's wisdom truths revealed in the bible, cannot be overruled or second guessed actually. The wisdom of man needs to be put in it's place...foolishness. Drivel.

Looks like some refuse to come on over to the winning side, even after years. Lurkers, don't let it happen to you!

 

[Jimmy D]

If I have to tell you that there's not much hope of your understanding biology. If I breed smaller dogs with smaller dogs I end up with yet smaller dogs.

Just as if I were to breed smaller wolves with smaller wolves I would end up with even smaller wolves. But in the wild there is no selective breeding of size to produce specific traits.

If I bred small humans with small humans I would end up with only small humans. If I bred those with Asian features only with those of Asian features, guess what, you get Asians.

Biology 101.

Your nonsense is debunked... or are you ignoring scientific evidence? (Again)

The IGF1 small dog haplotype is derived from Middle Eastern grey wolves
Previous research identified IGF1 as a major gene affecting skeletal size in domestic dogs [16]. In this study, we examined genetic variation surrounding the IGF1 gene in the progenitor of domestic dogs in order to uncover the evolutionary history of the gene. This study confirms the absence of the derived small SNP allele in the intron 2 region of IGF1 (CanFam1 44228468) in a large sample of grey wolves and further establishes the absence of a small dog associated SINE element in all wild canids and most large dog breeds. Thus, the absence of both the SINE element and SNP allele in wild canids suggests that the mutation for small body size post-dates the domestication of dogs. Presumably, the absence of these two loci in wolves may reflect a unique recombination event in domestic dogs. However, we find no evidence of recombination between the SINE element and derived SNP allele in domestic dogs and the derived SNP allele distinguishes the associated common small (A, B and C) and large (D-L) haplotypes. Additionally, because all small dogs possess these diagnostic mutations, the small size phenotype likely arose early in the history of domestic dogs..

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If I have to tell you that there's not much hope of your understanding biology. If I breed smaller dogs with smaller dogs I end up with yet smaller dogs.

Just as if I were to breed smaller wolves with smaller wolves I would end up with even smaller wolves. But in the wild there is no selective breeding of size to produce specific traits.
...
Biology 101.

Lol, no - that's absurd! I recommend genetics 101.

Your comment on understanding biology broke my irony meter again.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I indeed limit my thinking. I limit it to reflect actual reality.
In actual reality, an organism isn't 2 races / species at once.

Neither is the Grey Wolf, yet over 100 subspecies came from them. You actually deny reality.

And yet, a grey wolf is a grey wolf and not a chiwawa or st bernard. Or any other kind of dog for that matter - it's a wolf.

And yet St Bernard's and Chiwahwah were produced by selective breeding of grey wolves....

Also, the wolves you see today aren't the ancestors of dogs. They share ancestors with dogs.

Origin of the domestic dog - Wikipedia

"The closest living relative of the dog is the gray wolf and there is no evidence of any other canine contributing to its genetic lineage."

If YOU say so.

That makes no sense again. Genetics doesn't work that way.

Genetics works exactly that way, since there is no evidence any other canine contributed to their genetics.

If that were true, we wouldn't be able to identify them all by DNA alone.

Why not? Nothing new was added to an Asian or African genome, yet you can identify them by DNA alone.

They trace back to it, but their genomes did not exist yet. Wolf DNA is wolf DNA, not chiwawa DNA.

No, Chiwahwah DNA is Wolf DNA, just parts enhanced or deleted. We agree wolf DNA is not Chiwahwah DNA as it toook wolf DNA to make Chiwahwah DNA, not the other way around. Straw man.

And it was breed from the grey wolf over the course of thousands of years of artificial selection.

And that possible combination already existed in the genome or selective breeding would have produced no new breeds.....

So what race were adam and eve?

No idea, since we have nothing but their descendants. Just as what breed would a wolf be if you had only dog DNA, no living wolves and no way to tell? You might call it anything man decides to call it.

The answer to that is because of artificial selection. A lot of dog breeds aren't evolved by selecting for survivability and reproductive success, but for other traits like size or type of fur or whatever.

We even have dogbreeds today that literally aren't capable anymore of natural reproduction.

And yet you understand they are of the same species.... yet if one were to discuss equines......

Organisms demonstrably started out simple, as is clearly seen in the fossil record.

And yet the first life was complex, and sprang into existence from no previous life. That you then confuse the successive creations as evolution is the root of your problem. Even if those that exist after extinction events are not found in the previous layers or those in the previous layers found after, except those that survived.
A trilobite is not simple, it is complete and remained the same from the oldest one found to the youngest one found. No evidence of change from the first to the last.

Having said that, evolution doesn't necessarily lead to more complexity. It leads to being a better fit for the environment in terms of survivability and reproductive success.

That might or might not warrant / require / lead to more complexity, but it doesn't necessarily have to. Sometimes the other way happens has well: decrease in complexity.

Evolution has nothing to do with it. Stop confusing adaptation as evolution.

If I take a million black rabbits and place them close to the Arctic circle I will over time get white fat rabbits. But they will still be rabbits and will always be rabbits.

Except that you do. We ask you to honestly evaluate the evidence and actually inform yourself on the basics of biology. As I have pointed out several times, it's clear that your knowledge about this is either non-existant or just extremely misguided. That is clear from everything you have to say about this topic. You get really elementary things completely wrong. Like your comment the other day that "chimps are supposedly the ancestors of humans" for example. No person who even has only a basic understanding of evolutionary biology would say such a thing.

And yet you can't show me any of the claimed common ancestors on any evolutionary tree that split into anything.

Imagine that. As I said, imaginary lines drawn to imaginary common ancestors creating your imaginary links.

While what you are asking me is to "just believe" your bare claims about ancient "super DNA" - whatever that means. You are asking me to "just believe" and assume that all those biologists who have been doing research the past 200 years have it all wrong.

I don't ask you to believe, just accept the fact that the genome is now 97% junk, so couldn't have been 97% junk to start with for all those errors to accumulate.

Why not? They change their story every time you turn around claiming something different than they claimed before. Which means that what they claimed as fact before was in fact not true...... otherwise they wouldn't now be claiming something else as fact......

And obviously both species still belong to the same family. Duh, they share ancestry.
If they would turn into something from another family, then evolution theory would effectively be falsified.

Not same family, same species. Get the facts correct in your mind.

See, this is another "tell" that your understanding about evolution is seriously lacking. When you say things like "but they are still the same family" as if it is somehow an argument against evolution - then you don't know what you are talking about.

Same species, get the facts correct in your mind, quit trying to double talk your way out by suddenly diverging to the family level.

Again, it's like arguing against gravity by saying that hammers don't fall down in the ISS.

Why would I argue against gravity, it's a perfectly valid theory for .1% of the universe, planetary systems, non ionized matter. It just doesn't apply to the other 99.9% of the universe is all.

Nope.

It's just reproduction + selection. In the case of agriculture or breeding programs, it's artificial selection. In nature, it's natural selection.

And the difference in offspring between a Husky and Mastiff if we waited for natural events such as famine to bring them together would be different than when man brought them together how?

Except the time frame involved there is no difference....

Let's just put that silly false argument to rest, shall we?

How DNA sequence divides chihuahua and great dane

The "small dog" variant suppresses the activity of the gene, inhibiting growth.
The same sequence of DNA was found in other small breeds such as chihuahuas, toy fox terriers and pomeranians.
It was not there in larger breeds such as Irish wolfhounds, St Bernards and great danes, or in wild members of the dog family including wolves and jackals

How about that, ha? A DNA sequence that is present in "small dog" variants, but not in wolves or other big canines.

Apparently you don't understand what "suppresses means". I already told you it was no surprise that the genome combines itself into different combinations over time.

I just disproved that statement.
Small dogs have a gene sequence that does not exist in wolves.

Of course the sequence is different, or they would still be wolves. It is simply a different sequence of the same genome, not a new genome or new DNA. Exactly what I have been telling you, you simply verified what I have been saying, that what already exists is simply copied into new combinations. So if an existing combination in the genome is copied into a new sequence, why of course this new sequence does not exist in the original. But nothing new was created, only the genome that already existed was written into a different format. This you continue to deny to yourself, acting as if your straw man falsifies what I said when it merely confirms what I said.

The only difference between them is the order in which the genetic code is written, so that different sequences exist in one that do not exist in another, but it is the exact same DNA just written in a new format. No new DNA was created, never has been never will be. It is your theory that requires DNA that never existed before to magically create itself out of thin air, not mine. Mine just changes what already exists and writes it into a new format.

Except that genetics shows that exactly that happens in reality.

Show me one single thing that shows DNA that never existed was created? Not existing DNA written into a new sequence, but the actual creation of brand new genetic markers... T,C,G,A ...... show me where a new DNA marker has ever been created???

That's what I thought, all talk and no show....

You mean like stories about magical gardens with super-humans and talking snakes?

The difference being I admit mine is faith, your the one claiming you have proof, so show that proof of new DNA being created in the genome where it didn't exist before..... T,C,G,A, show me once where a new genetic marker has been created?

That or admit yours is as much faith based as mine....

You all claim what was once bacteria then fish, etc became man. Prove your theory even has any basis at all by showing me that say fish DNA can become anything other than fish DNA or that DNA that exists in humans can be created from fish DNA.

You can't show that any DNA that does not already exist can be changed into other DNA or that DNA that already exists can be added to by creating DNA that doesn't exist.

Zip, zero, zilch, pure faith based genetics...... at least mine has the scientific accepted proof that only what already exists is written into new sequences.....

 

[Subduction Zone]

That relates to what..how?

Please pay attention.

Pretending will get you no where.

dad, please! It is a sin to falsely accuse others of being guilty of your sin.

New rules. They are the best support on earth.
Especially when people cite the bible and talk about Jesus as if they had some small clue what they were talking about. Both Jesus and the devil used Scripture. I can too. I see you try to also. Let's be honest.

See above.

The life of God in the bible and higher than man's wisdom truths revealed in the bible, cannot be overruled or second guessed actually. The wisdom of man needs to be put in it's place...foolishness. Drivel.

You are merely misinterpreting the Bible. You make that mistake all of the time. Remember, you are not a valid soruce.

Looks like some refuse to come on over to the winning side, even after years. Lurkers, don't let it happen to you!

Once again you only are describing yourself in this attack.

 

[Jimmy D]

Mine just changes what already exists and writes it into a new format.

How does it do that then, mutations by any chance?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

If you aren't interested in seeing any evidence then what was the purpose of your demand?

Double talk, I asked you to show me this common ancestor, not your imaginary links to this imaginary common ancestor.

Can you or can you not produce a single common ancestor?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

How does it do that then, mutations by any chance?

Sure, I'm not denying the occasional quadrillionth mutation which writes what already exists into a new format. But still nothing new was created, only what already exists was written into a new format. Regardless of the number of mutations that might successfully write a portion of the genetic code into a new format, that code was already existing, just in a different format. No new DNA has been created.

But you wouldn't be denying what the most common outcome of mutations are, would you?

Try a google search for birth defects, you'll see what those 50+ mutations gets you.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So you still do not understand genetics.

Says the person that only sees existing DNA written into a new sequence, but wants new DNA to appear where it never existed before, despite no proof to it is possible.

 

[Aman777]

So to be a son of god we need to descend from lower animals eh? Ha. Then you say apes descended into people. Then you say humans arrived on earth after the flood.

Gong.

In the Old Testament, the sons of God were the people of FLESH who could produce children with Humans, the descendants of Adam.

Gen 6:1 ¶ And it came to pass, when men (Heb-mankind) began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, (He called THEIR name Adam in the Day they were created) Gen 6:2 That the sons of God (people of flesh/prehistoric mankind) saw the daughters of men (Heb-mankind) that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

In the New Testament, the sons of God are those people who have been born again Spiritually in Jesus Christ.

Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Can YOU tell us WHY prehistoric people and today's born again Christians are the same, in God's eyes? Or will you repeat one of your comedy routines? I'll make it simple. Just fill in the blank.

The sons of God in the O.T. were _________ and so are Christians today. Tick tock...tick tock

 

[Aman777]

Who said anything about giants? What does men of renown have to do with giants? Apparently you are connecting dots that exist only in your own mind perhaps? I don't believe Hercules for example was ever described as a giant.

Dad doesn't know that the giants of Gen 6:4 are the intellectual giants on Adam's world and also after that on the present world.

Gen 6:4 There were (intellectual) giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God (prehistoric people) came in unto the daughters of men, (Heb-Adam/Humans) and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Today's Humans are the giants. Sometimes I think some of us are not so intellectual but if we can post, we are the intellectual giants of today, since NO other living creature posts. God bless us

 

[Aman777]

There were no prehistoric people left alive after the flood. Noah's grandsons could not have married those that didn't exist, since only Noah and his family survived the flood.

Amen, on Adam's Earth...BUT...the present Earth is covered in water, but rocks are not clean dissolved in water the way Adam's Earth was. Isa 24:19

*** No such thing as the Trinity except a corruption of the One God by Egyptian religion in the third century.

Then please explain the Us and Our in the following verse:

Gen 1:26 ¶ And God said, Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness:


*** The 5th creation were the dinosaurs and were wiped out long before man was created when the earth became desolate and waste and darkness covered the earth along with water, having nothing to do with Noah's flood. That darkness that wiped out the dinosaurs was the 5th destruction. Adam was the 6th creation. Soon there will be a 6th destruction followed by a seventh and final creation.

Sounds like a personal opinion. Does Scripture support your view? If so, then please post chapter and verse. God Bless you

 

[Aman777]

About as long as it took Adam to mate with Eve.

Just because Adam desired Eve, Gen 2:24 he had to wait until AFTER she sinned, and AFTER he sinned, in order to fulfill his fleshly desire. Gen 4:1 Adam and Eve were in perfect bodies until they sinned and became flesh. Like Christians in Heaven, they didn't have sex. God has something better. God bless you

 

[Subduction Zone]

Double talk, I asked you to show me this common ancestor, not your imaginary links to this imaginary common ancestor.

Please, no false claims. If you don't understand what evidence is you should not ask for any.

Can you or can you not produce a single common ancestor?

For all life? Of course not. We do have massive evidence for one. You have no evidence for your beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Says the person that only sees existing DNA written into a new sequence, but wants new DNA to appear where it never existed before, despite no proof to it is possible.

We know how "new DNA" appears. Your beliefs have been shown to be wrong. Sadly you do not want to learn. People can't help those that refuse to learn.

 

[dad]

Who said anything about giants? What does men of renown have to do with giants? Apparently you are connecting dots that exist only in your own mind perhaps? I don't believe Hercules for example was ever described as a giant.

Great, so angels had kids. I think we agree. So?

 

[dad]

You are merely misinterpreting the Bible.

We should ask backsliders or unbelievers what God really meant then?


Good luck with that.

 

[dad]

In the Old Testament, the sons of God were the people of FLESH who could produce children with Humans, the descendants of Adam.

The sons of god is a usual title for angels. Trying to claim it is flesh beings is pure opinion. Don't build a house of card theory on that.

Gen 6:1 ¶ And it came to pass, when men (Heb-mankind) began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

Yes women are part of mankind and they have babies. No apes needed.

(He called THEIR name Adam in the Day they were created) Gen 6:2 That the sons of God (people of flesh/prehistoric mankind) saw the daughters of men (Heb-mankind) that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

God let Adam name the animals and the woman. Adam named the woman Eve.

In the New Testament, the sons of God are those people who have been born again Spiritually in Jesus Christ.

True. We are born of the spirit and destined to be like Jesus and angels. Nothing to do whatsoever with a planet of the apes theory.

Can YOU tell us WHY prehistoric people and today's born again Christians are the same, in God's eyes?

That which is born of the spirit is spirit? Eternal sons of God. Not cave men, monkey men, or planet of the apes man.

Or will you repeat one of your comedy routines? I'll make it simple. Just fill in the blank.

Responding truthfully to absurd theories results in comedy. Seeing how ridiculous something is involves laughter.

The sons of God in the O.T. were _________ and so are Christians today. Tick tock...tick tock

Usually angels in the OT. In the NT those born of the spirit, with eternal life also are called sons of God. Got any tough questions now?

 

[Subduction Zone]

We should ask backsliders or unbelievers what God really meant then?


Good luck with that.

What do you mean by "backsliders"? It appears that you are attacking fellow Christians again.

And one of the reason that many atheists became atheists is because they have a better understanding of the Bible than most.

Can you spot your big mistake in your post? To me it is obvious.